Myweponsg00d

I am an atheist and am annoyed by most religions, but I have to say, I have never seen evidence that the church actually held back science, and that it was the fault of having a religious institution. A lot of people just say "blah blah blah THE DARK AGES!!!!" but I have never seen a description of any events that took place in the Dark Ages that actually convince me it is the fault of religion.

I still don't understand the logic. If two individuals are angry at each other, how is whisking the posts away to an invisible forum going to help resolve the issue? Then you follow up with a PM to the individual saying "Hayyy...stop that" It's just not really moderation. Its just punishment. Like I said, if there is something inappropriate to hide from the public sight, I understand. But why do arguments between people need to be hidden? I mean imagine you are at work, exchanging rude emails with a colleague that you aren't seeing eye-to-eye with. Should the supervisor just delete your emails and say "Stop fighting" or should he help resolve the issue?

The worst part about these forums is when "moderators" panic and delete tons of posts or tons of text. I can understand when you need to delete a post if it contains something pornographic or obscene, which should not be seen by minors. But I have had plenty of my posts deleted just because I shared too edgy of an opinion or flamed a bit too much. I think for these situations, the moderators should actually...erm...MODERATE the discussion. Not hide the discussion and pretend like nothing bad is going on. This just leaves a bunch of people angry instead of actually settling the situation.

I agree, there isn't a good case for banning it. But there isn't no case. Arguing that there is no possible security repercussion caused by allowing people to hide their face in public is asinine. Nobody said it was a zero risk case. The point is that lots of stuff is a risk, and fear-mongering things into illegality is oppressive. The risk case is a stupid argument. It's risky to have people own scissors for crying out loud. It is funny that you are criticising him for calling anti-Islam things "racist", yet you think that "racism" applies to "ethnic groups". Saying something about an ethnic group isn't technically racist either.

I clearly stated what advantage being disguised and unquestioned gives before. The same thing in a bank - they can stand around, analyze the situation, look for cameras, and plan, all without their face being visible. A jacket is not beneficial to robbers to the extent an unquestioned face covering is. You do realize I don't even support banning the burqa, right? A jacket isn't as beneficial to a robber? How is he even going to rob the place if he doesn't have a place to conceal his weapon? If he has a jacket he can hide the gun in his jacket and look around, analyze the situation, look for cameras, and plan, all without the gun being visible. And the fact that you don't support it shows, because you can't make a good case for it.

They could, that's the point. They could wear one, walk casually into a store, spend ten minutes looking for security cameras, and waiting for other customers to leave. You can't realistically do that wearing a ski mask or pantyhose. So what? They can stand around for 10 minutes. What advantage does this give someone when robbing a bank or store? Many things that are not banned also give advantages when robbing a place. Wearing a jacket is beneficial to robbers. Should we outlaw those?

If someone robs a bank with a ski mask on, how can you tell him apart from anyone else who had a ski mask on? If someone robs a bank and has a twin, how can you tell them apart? Let's outlaw twins. Also, its not like the person with the burqa is going to disappear into a sea of people wearing burqas. Most people in France will not be wearing one. If anything, wearing a burqa will make the robber stand out. If someone commits an assault in the US wearing jeans, a grey hoodie, and a full-head mask, how will you be able to identify that person? It isn't necessary for all Muslims, it depends on what you want to observe. And I am talking about France. If you feel any of my logic is unreasonable, feel free to point it out. That's the point of a discussion.

What the hell are you talking about? All current laws stay in place until theres a reason to overturn them. If we wanted to make it illegal to own a gun, we need to make a good case for why the law needs to be created. If burqas were illegal to start with, we would need a good reason for them to be made legal. People who wear burqas already need to remove their burqa to get ID cards. Also, when they need to prove their identity in a bank, or at the DMV, or anything like that, they must present their ID card and reveal their face. This is all before the burqa ban legislation got passed. I understand that there is MORE of a risk, but so what? Lots of stuff poses MORE of a risk. Public access to the internet poses more of a security risk than if we required everybody to obtain an internet permit/license. You need to present more of an argument. It is simple to just say "Blah blah blah its dangerous" Describe a specific scenario where banning the burqa will now protect us. You mean your argument? Yeah, pretty much. Your argument is just "It looks scary". So? Lots of stuff is scary to lots of people. Dressing like a goth looks scary to me, but I don't think it should be outlawed.

Okay: you start. Since burqas were not banned before, we need a reason to ban them. What is your reason?

Okay...and?? So then why would a robber ever perfer a burqa over a ski mask? The difference is that these people have been wearing burqas before France even became a nation (I think?). What? So if they were wearing a large bulky coat instead they wouldn't have just blended in with the crowd? The only reason they had those on was due to the location of the incident. And? So what? Whats the difference? Why can't someone with ill intent now just slip on a burqa just like they slip on a ski mask currently? And also, what is the scenario? Describe a situation that will now be prevented due to the burqa. What? Like...a robber walks from his home to a bank with a burqa on, cleverly blending in with the crowd. Then he goes in and robs a bank. And?? So what? Weres his getaway car? Why is this situation more dangerous than if the person had just run into the bank from a van, with a ski mask on? All you are doing is saying "Its a threat, you can't tell who they are" Lots of stuff sounds dangerous if you say vague stuff like this. Public internet access is a security threat because it gives anyone the ability to hack into confidential files or spread viruses. It's a threat! Oh no! Pockets are a threat too. I can walk the whole way up to a bank teller without them knowing I have a gun. If pockets were banned, I would have to carry my gun.

How is this different than wearing a ski mask, pantyhose, and all of the other stuff that robbers usually wear? Because if you see someone in one of these, you know they're going to commit robbery (to a reasonable extent). You can't know that with someone wearing a burqa until they've actually pulled the gun on you, which leaves you very little time to do anything about it. You're right. All of the people who wear ski masks to rob banks take long strolls in the park with their ski masks on before heading to the bank. Banning the burqa doesn't do anything against people who want to actually use it as a disguise. Youre right, theres nobody who wears ski masks around and there are people who wear burqas around with honest intentions. Whats your point? If anything your argument sounds like you should be against the burqa ban. We don't see ski masks around in public, yet people still wear them to comit crimes all the time. Why would the burqa be any different? If someone wants to use the burqa to hide their ID, what is going to make it different from just throwing it on the same way people throw on other masks?

How is this different than wearing a ski mask, pantyhose, and all of the other stuff that robbers usually wear? And again, how are these face coverings different from other face coverings which have not been banned? There are many people who commit crimes under many disguises.

Then we should ban pockets and trenchcoats. I can go outside right now with a gun inside my coat pocket and nobody would know. This is clearly a security threat. Also if anyone is going to blow up a building, do you really think theyre gonna give a crap if a 250 dollar burqa fine is in place? No. Theyre gonna throw on their disquise then drop off the bomb, blow it up, and run away. Hell, lots of Muslim attacks are suicides anyway, so what does it matter if their identity is concealed?

As much as I am opposed to religion, I think the burqa ban is stupid. One of the biggest principles I live my life by is not to do anything to somebody that I wouldn't want done to myself. If I wanted to wear a head covering, I would be really really annoyed with anyone who tried to tell me not to wear it. If we want to start getting into the idea of banning things that promote opression of sexes, lets start getting into magazines, movies, music, etc where opressive messages are conveyed frequently. Hell, all Western women have been brainwashed into thinking that they need to shave their arm pits. Let us be serious, the reason this ban passed is because people are scared of Muslims. The stuff about womens rights is a trojan horse.

Yep, you guessed it. We're all sissy boys who are afraid of dating 500lb women. Don't hate on us sissies. I'd hit it. I wouldn't date it though. So I find anything bigger than Cs a turn off, so shoot me. We all have things that make the opposite sex unattractive to us, that's what this thread is about. And I think the only thing that would put a girl into the "off limits" category is if she was covered in feces or had a cut off arm or bleeding wound. I think anyone who bickers over the difference between something like a 32 inch waist vs a 40 inch waist probably hasnt gotten much action.

Nobody ever talks about anything outside of the observable universe. Because...well, it can't be observed. So really we know nothing about it.

It's really hard to say, since we don't know of a world without religion. I think morality is good for the world. I think blind belief without evidence or especially in spite of evidence is very bad for the world. But if I had the choice between a world where everybody had morals and nobody believed in science, versus a world where nobody had morals and everyone believed in science, I would have to pick the moral world. But I really do think that morality can be completely seperated from religion. Why do we need a man in the sky in order to express our beliefs about what is right and wrong?

There are 10100 zeros. So there are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros The observable (known) universe is roughly 14 billion light years in radius (it is a "sphere") 14 billion light years is 1.32447398 × 1026 meters. So the volume of the universe is V = 1.3 * pi * r3 so roughly 9.49 x 1078 m3 is the ammount of space available in the known universe. A 400 page book takes up roughly 0.00098 m3. Each line on the page can fit about 50 zeros, 25 lines per page, means that an average, readable book would be able to contain roughly 50,000 zeros. So take the volume of the universe and divide it by the volume of a book and you will see that roughly 9.68 x 1081 books would fit inside the universe. This gives us a grand total of 4.84 x 1086 zeros. If you wanted to print a book that would be able to fill the universe with a 10100 zeros, you would need to be able to print a book that contains 1 x 1019 zeros

But what if I wrote it out really, really tiny? If you wrote it out in 1-point font, you would need 4 x 1069 universes. EDIT: I forgot that this number refers to the length of the universe, not the volume. If you can fit 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 zeros into a space of 60 cubic inches, then youd be able to fit it into the universe. If you replaced all of the planets and stars and stuff with paper with really tiny zeros on it.

The number 10100 is known as a googol The number 1010100 is known as a googolplex. If you tried to write a googolplex out by hand, you could not fit the paper inside the entire space of the known universe. Yet, this number is still very very far away from infinity. In fact, it is no closer to infinity than the number 1 is. Kudos to anyone who knows where I got this from (without searching...).

Yep, you guessed it. We're all sissy boys who are afraid of dating 500lb women. Don't hate on us sissies. I'd hit it. I wouldn't date it though.

Nothing. Bunch of sissy boys being so picky about random crap like whether the boobs are a C or a D. As long as the girl isn't covered in dog crap or something ridiculous, I don't see a problem.

Interesting. Nice to have this stuff available in the age of information.

Made to believe? You mean like theres a gene that wants us to believe that an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe?

All of this implies that a game with more bots and less players is a worse game. I personally wouldn't care if only 100 people still played Runescape. As long as updates still came, why does it really matter? How many people do you really interact with?